Question on Egypt and game play

[Gen.Metaxas]

Is the only way to get allied land troops to Egypt via transport through the medeterenian?

(Clash of Steel had an option to send troops via Cape of Good Hope)

AND

Is there any plans to be able to build new minor allied troops (Canadian for example) in their home country. Perhaps up to an annual limit.

(For example Canada can have up to 2 armies in 1940 and say upto 3 or 4 by 1945)

[Hubert Cater]

Is the only way to get allied land troops to Egypt via transport through the medeterenian?

(Clash of Steel had an option to send troops via Cape of Good Hope)

You've got to run the gauntlet

Is there any plans to be able to build new minor allied troops

That was an idea but the answer here would be no

Hubert

[Gen.Metaxas]

Thanks for the reply Hubert

I thought the creation of units for minor allies might be a strategy to protect from invasions.

I will have to wait to see what alternative solutions you have come up with in your gold demo.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Is the only way to get allied land troops to Egypt via transport through the medeterenian?

(Clash of Steel had an option to send troops via Cape of Good Hope)

You've got to run the gauntlet

Hubert</font>

[Achiles]

The way Egypt was set up does perplex me. Most of he troops that faught in Egypt were indeed indian, anzac, and south african. I don't think any of those troops were sent by way of the med. Most of the supply went around the cape until near the end of the north african campiagn. Why don't you just allow units to be operationally moved to Egypt. You can allready do that with air units. You could increase the operational movement cost by like 50-100% to reflect the big time increase incured by travelling around the cape. Leaving this as is will IMHO seriouly degrade the quality of the game. The whole of the north african and middle eastern theater is already poorly represented. Sticking the british with this unrelistic limitation of only being able to get troops to Egypt by way of the med hurts the british unrealistically and uneccesarily. An Axis player of decent skill and experiance can easily eliminate the british fleeet at Alexandria. Malta isn't much of a challenge either. With strong german air support you can bring the little island to her knees pretty easily. The only reall trade is that you will likely have to postpone your russian invasion by a couple months. On a side note. To all those wondering, not all fortifications are autimatically destroyed on capture. When I landed an italian corps on malta the fortification stayed perfectly intact. I assume Gibraltar and Sevastapol work the same way. Back to the topic at hand. with Malta and the east med fleet out of action britain has no almost no hope of reinforcing Egypt. If the italians get Gibraltar then Egypt is completely cut off. This means that the italians only need defeat the british east med fleet and take Malta and then they can grind the one british corps in Egypt down to nothing at their leasure. Cya, bye!

[Camicie Nere]

It SHOULD be difficult for the British to reinforce Egypt; it was in real life. And yes, a determined Axis player can indeed dominate the Med by giving significant German support to the Italians.

That makes a lot of sense, in that most reputable historians view the Mediterranean option as being Hitler's best and most legitimate shot at winning the war. Chruchill was tremendously fearful of this in 1940-1 and a very large part of OKW and the Kriegsmarine favored a concerted effort in that direction.

The reason, of course, was that the Brits indeed had such a difficulty in reinforcing Egypt. The Italians DID have local superiority, both at sea and on the ground. (They of course frittered away both via some incredibly stupid strategic decisions.) But had the Germans contributed more than the very modest assets allocated to the DAK in '41, the situation for Britain would have been dire. Most serious students of the issue are convinced that a neutralization of Malta in late '40 followed by a commitment of even four German armored divisions would have made the Axis unstoppable in that part of the world.

Hubert is right about forcing the Allies to run the gauntlet - during the battles for Tobruk this is exactly what the Brits did in banging a convoy full of armored vehicles through the Med. (In the event only losing one ship to mines in the straits of Sicily.) Churchill did not want to risk the greater amount of time it would have taken to run around the horn AND the fact that U-boats were actually quite a menace in the Africa/South Atlantic theatre due to a paucity of Allied ASW assets in the area.

There WERE Anzac forces in Egypt, but not a particularly great number (such as during WWI). Keep in mind that during the period in question the Brits, Anzacs, and Indians were heavily tied down in their home areas waiting to see what Japan would do.

Anyway, the point of all this is that to my mind the game does a pretty good job modelling the historical situation and dynamic. Maybe a future version could allow a "slow" operational reinforcement via the Cape route, but again, I think HC has done a great job with the system as it is.

[Ancient One]

It is of great amusement to me that the Mediterranean situation in SC is the exact opposite of that in CoS. I think neither game handles the Med properly, but I think CoS portrays it quite a bit more realistically than SC.

Historically, in spite of the distances involved, Germany and Italy had far greater difficulty reinforcing and supplying their forces in North Africa than the British did.

[DevilDog]

The Germans only had problems with supplies and reinforcements later (late '41-'42) in the African war after the Allies gained theater superiority in warships and airplanes and started using ULTRA to intercept convoys. In the early part of the African war the situation was reversed, as the Brits had horible wireless security, and Romel knew their every move before it began. After the Brits improved their security, their success correspondingly rose, while Romel's fortunes waned.

So it looks like Hubert got it right. Again.

It is a very interesting part of the war that is largely overlooked. In one of my first threads I suggested options dealing with operational and theater intel for SC - it's been my hope that someday a good strategic wargame would implement some of this.

A good book to read is "Bodyguard of Lies".

[ June 14, 2002, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

[Hunter]

The ANZACS were definitely not 'sitting at home to see if the Japanese might bomb Pearl Harbour'

Significant forces were in Egypt until such time as the troops were ordered back (despite British wishes) to defend against the rampant Japanese.

Hunter

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Camicie Nere:

It SHOULD be difficult for the British to reinforce Egypt; it was in real life. And yes, a determined Axis player can indeed dominate the Med by giving significant German support to the Italians.

However, not a domination to the extent that Britain loses Alexandria, AND a third of her fleet. :eek: (... and allows easy access to those oil wells in Iraq, AND threatens Russia from the south!)

Perhaps Hubert has already improved the AI in this area.

As the Allied player, you can always commence reinforcement BEFORE Italy declares, bringing the BEF down from France, the HQ from Britain, and perhaps trading your bomber for a tank group.

This would also bolster the vulnerable fleet, since the transports would need protection, and a BB might stay behind. Additionally, you could insert a corps into Malta and use that Air Fleet in Egypt.

PBEM players could find many ways to insure that the Med remains safely in Allied hands. It has been the Allied AI that has been problematical.

And so, knowing there is NO AI that is perfect, we accept its inherent limitations.

[Hubert Cater]

I think the problem here is that the history books will say that the Italians did not do well in the Med. so the logical argument would be that Axis should not do well in the Med in this game, since this would be ahistorical, but it could be argued that the Italians could have done much better considering the numerical superiorty in both ships and men that they had in the area at the time in and around 1940. It has been estimated that the Italian navy had a 2:1 advantage in the Med at that time and in the inital Italian drive into egypt they enjoyed an approximate 10:1 ratio of about 300,000 men against 30,000 British. What happens historically is already known, but what would happen if the Italians did not suffer from poor leadership, or if you were in command? You will still have weak Italian HQ's but you will be the master of their deployment and if you do better than what happens historically then why not? Sure the italian navy was very timid historically, but under your command they don't have to be, and considering the current deployments in the game as it reflects the situation as it were, having successes in the Med as Axis merely shows what could have been possible had the numerical advantages the Italians had been exploited effectively.

Edit: I've added a little tweak to the Allied Navy to have them a little more protective of Alexandria and hopefully this will make it a bit more entertaining

Hubert

[ June 14, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[grimlord]

The issue here is being over simplified and from what i read one side is all for only allowing reinforcement through the med and another the suez.

Historically both sides are correct....the english for time reason did reinforce through the med and they also used the suez...

I feel that the game is incorrectly modeled here...the allies stopped reinforceing through the med quite early as the germans committed air fleets to sicily for that exact reason...as the war lingered on the only reinforceing in numbers was throught the suez canal...which saw such forces as the Indians, South Africans, and Anzac arrive this way...the idea that the english could not hold africa is not sound...the germans had one

chance to see limited victory here and they blew it by under staffing africa...the success of Rommel is quite blown out of proportion in both its success and the real effect it had...

he with the forces he had and even with "3-4" armored divisions could not and would not have taken africa..the english had far to much and he to little...let us not forget the fact that he could not supply the army that he had (Malta played a HUGE roll in this as did english subs, again based out of malta)...so the idea of adding more armor (which germany did not have to begin with; the assests that reinforced africa were the scrappings of the wermacht in its outset, and did not become set until right before and after el-almein)...

and as to the taking of malta this was planned and discared to the demise of the german italian forces in africa...enough on history on to solutions:

1) place the port of suez on the map an give it a value of 2-5...allow it to supply the english in africa as if in england...this way if the germans want to interdict africa they can bomb the port down to 0 and this should kill its supply value..(this is something the germans never did but this is a what if game)

2) either allow a- the building of english troops in africa b- the around the horn movement of such troops or c- reinforce africa as historical with the anzac, sa, and the indain forces that were sent there originally

3) add a sub to the staring forces of malta and allow this to cut the axis supply in africa...or more accurately allow malta itself to interdict supply to africa as was entirely historical

4) allow the english fleet to flee through suez as they historically did and could if they so desire...i.e. treat suez port as sort of a gibralter except that it would take ground forces to occupy it to allow axis passege through it (if at all) this would allow england to preserve their fleet in the eastern med if it did not wish to fight.

the issue of only allowing the english to reinforce via the med is not accurate and will eventually result in an un-historicly easy axis victory there...the idea of sending the BEF from france is ridiculous as to it being the only way to reinforce africa...the allies should be able to hold africa unless the allies do something other than was the case historically...and in this Malta should play the hugely significant roll that it did historically...should the allies wish to add to africas defense with the BEF more power to them but that should not be the only serious reinforcement to africa...

Joe

[grimlord]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

I think the problem here is that the history books will say that the Italians did not do well in the Med. so the logical argument would be that Axis should not do well in the Med in this game, since this would be ahistorical, but it could be argued that the Italians could have done much better considering the numerical superiorty in both ships and men that they had in the area at the time in and around 1940. It has been estimated that the Italian navy had a 2:1 advantage in the Med at that time and in the inital Italian drive into egypt they enjoyed an approximate 10:1 ratio of about 300,000 men against 30,000 British. What happens historically is already known, but what would happen if the Italians did not suffer from poor leadership, or if you were in command? You will still have weak Italian HQ's but you will be the master of their deployment and if you do better than what happens historically then why not? Sure the italian navy was very timid historically, but under your command they don't have to be, and considering the current deployments in the game as it reflects the situation as it were, having successes in the Med as Axis merely shows what could have been possible had the numerical advantages the Italians had been exploited effectively.

Edit: I've added a little tweak to the Allied Navy to have them a little more protective of Alexandria and hopefully this will make it a bit more entertaining

Hubert

ok i wrote the other response prior to this coming out hubert so i didnt mean to step on any toes...

but to respond to you:

yes this is a "what-if" game and if i am in command things will be different...but...the italians did have poor leadership (reflectedin their hq's quite nicely)

the timid nature of their fleet was both right and wrong and as a player i can differ my roll here...and make my own choice...as can i about the malta situation and as to the level of german commitment...but:

what i cannot change and is a reflection of modelling not my command is the roll that matla played on axis supply (except that i can of course take malta) and the fact tht the allies should have the forces in africa availiable to make a credible and heartfelt defense...this is not the case in the demo against even a human player...and while the itlaians did have a 2:1 numericall supperiority in surface and subsurface vessels every time they sailed against the english they lost...and Mussiliani did not commit them in force because they were all he had...again you are right i can and will differ my strategy against the allies (why stick with a "real" plan that didnt work historically?)...but the allies have to have the same chance and choices innately avaliable historically...and i should have to defeat these however i can...

joe

[Straha]

Indeed it would make things much more aligned with reality if we only had the option to reinforce through the Suez (with a time delay penalty, and the transports actually having to go to the Southern tip of the Atlantic on the map to have at least some risk of being exposed to subs).

I agree, though, that the Italian Navy was only inferior with respect to leadership. It is in fact amazing *how* bad they fared, given their pretty clear local superiority. And I´m also missing the Italian airfleet quite a bit ... how about adding it and giving the UK the mentioned port at the Suez as a compensation?

Straha

[Desert Dave]

As Originally Posted by Straha:

Indeed it would make things much more aligned with reality if we only had the option to reinforce through the Suez (with a time delay penalty, and the transports actually having to go to the Southern tip of the Atlantic on the map to have at least some risk of being exposed to subs).

I would agree, and I seem to remember that Hubert was going to give some due consideration to this "around the Horn" idea?

This is my favorite theatre of Ops in WW2, perhaps due to the mythic stature achieved by The Desert Fox. :cool: (... mostly due to post war memoirs of respectful Brit Vets)

As Allies -- in the full game, you have 8-10 months to place whatever you want in Egypt. I foresee no real difficulty in holding the Med (allowing for a series of poor "dice rolls," or fiercely-determined Axis).

Nonetheless, for later on it would surely prove beneficial to at least have the option to reinforce the long way 'round Africa.

I would also like to see -- say, a 2-4% chance of receiving (being allowed to build for that turn ONLY, provided MPPs are available) ANZAC corps; that way, they may or may not show up on time, which would increase the tension for the Allied commander. :eek:

[Straha]

Another nice special rule to consider would be if HQ "Desert Fox" could attach Italian units while in Afrika. This would motivate players to actually employ him there.

Straha

[Stalin's Organ]

FYI the New Zealand division in the Desert was originally posted to the UK in 1940, and went to Egypt via Sth Africa.

I'm not sure whether or not the Aussie Division (I think there was only the 1??) did the same.

Certainly one the NZ division was IN Egypt reinforcements came via the Indian ocean and the Suez canal.

The brits maintained several corps in the desert after a while, and I don't ercall any of them being decimated during transit of the Med.

I wouldn't be surprised if the troops ALL transited via Sth Africa to avoid casualties.

AFAIK the only convoys that actually tried to transit the Med were pretty much emergency supplies/reinforcements (such as the Crusader tanks) and for Malta.

So it occurs to me that there should be provision to raise troop in Egypt - perhaps there could be a MPP surchrge to represent the cost of sending them around the Cape? Or a dealy - buy now get in 1 months time?

But you should NOT have to send them through the Med - it didn't work like that.

[dgaad]

The VAST MAJORITY of troops, supplies, and equipment that were delivered to Egypt or Cyrenacia between June 1940 and March 1943, on the order of 90% of all, came from points south of the Suez Canal. The few examples of convoys across the Med are just that : exceptions born of desperation. The desperation was not due to the difficulty of moving troops to Egypt, but to the time it took for them to get there by the Cape Horn and Suez pipeline. At certain points during the Africa campaign, particularly in the period between March and November 1941 when Yugoslavia and Greece were involved in the war and ultimately vanquished, the British were forced to jump the pipeline route in favor of the Med route because they didn't have the troops to help in the Balkans and maintain a cohesive front in Egypt / Cyrenacia. The convoys were a temporary shortcut measure.

[Zeres]

I concur with Grimlord....Please make Suez a port and give it a point value... Make is so you need to control both sides to control the canal. There seems to be pretty solid support for this idea in the player community. At least make it an option.. And if you have control of the canal and Malta let the Allies make limited amounts of units in Suez ( to reflect Empire troops.) This will be a boon to gameplay especially multi-play. There simply needs to be more reason to fight in Africa. And a consequence to whomever looses control of it... Currently it becomes a dead place on the board too often.

[ October 11, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Zeres ]

[dgaad]

Is it fair to conclude that Battlefront has been largely unresponsive on this issue ?

[Zeres]

Dgaad. It's pretty hard to say... I haven't seen any major announcements about what and what is not being included. I suppose player imput will be balanced against Huberts feelings about HIS game.